US - China potential military confrontation

magnumcromagnon wrote:All the high tech U.S. Weapon designs that the Chinese have in-depth knowledge on, the source is straight from the Pentagon:

This cannot be possible. In whichever server the information pertaining to such technologies are stored, there will be NO internet connection.

How will the Chinese hack into it?

RTN wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:All the high tech U.S. Weapon designs that the Chinese have in-depth knowledge on, the source is straight from the Pentagon:

This cannot be possible. In whichever server the information pertaining to such technologies are stored, there will be NO internet connection.

How will the Chinese hack into it?

Maybe old fashioned way. US is often lacking high qualified personal so they get professionals from east like always and let them work for good money and exploit their knowledge and expertize, while China is exploiting exact this situation by giving this high educated personal to US which provide access or information from within over years maybe decades.

Old fashioned espionage.

RTN wrote:

magnumcromagnon wrote:All the high tech U.S. Weapon designs that the Chinese have in-depth knowledge on, the source is straight from the Pentagon:

This cannot be possible. In whichever server the information pertaining to such technologies are stored, there will be NO internet connection.

How will the Chinese hack into it?

The Pentagon themselves are claiming this, take your questions up with them! BTW Northrop Grumman was convicted in U.S. federal court for providing Airforce 1 source-code to Russian intelligence, and the mere fact that they haven't been kicked out of the United States and are receiving record profits for mega carrier contracts indicates that Dwight D. Eisenhower's worst fears have came to light concerning the take over of the Military Industrial Complex. You may very well be right, maybe instead of obtaining secrets through hacking the defense firms probably just sold the tech to China in secret, and using the hacking story as a cover.

The obvious problem of trying to make your important information available to all your people who might need it no matter where or when it might be means a decent hacker can have the same access.

Of course it could have contained some false information, but a real country with decent spy penetration would already know that and the false info ignored.

I'd just like to add something on "hacking US weapons"........

One of my older brothers used to work at a US government contractor in the field of software... He claimed that we are 10 years behind where we "could" be, and that the rest of the world would catch up (keep in mind he said this many years ago). As such, I'm not surprised that the US has had so many weapons hacked! Software is always number one when it comes to "being hack-proof". I'm in disbelief that NATO so heavily relies on AEGIS which is thirty years old excluding updates.

It's bullshit. we clearly know USA military power is stronger than all the other countries combined. USA is the only Superpower in the world，and have many allies (maybe some indians say they are superpower HAHAHA ) before 2040 I don't think  any country will catch up with USA. China need keep low profile and develop technology and economy.

this article is build on  the Cold War mentality . even though we have different opinion about some international issues, but we have huge common economical  interest , not like soviet union and USA .

by the way I personally prefer F35 than SU35

Yeah, it is Strategy Page.... it is an uber weapon that makes all other existing equivalents obsolete... like the F-35, which is of course ridiculous because every country in the world does not need an F-35 and less than 15% of countries in the world could afford them anyway.

In other words it has the mentality of a 12-14 year old... if it is not the best then it is worse than useless... tell that to american soldiers with missing limbs from IEDs... a block of explosive in no way could defeat the worlds greatest superpower with satellites and stealth fighters and stealth bombers.

the biggest threat in Afghanistan is Kalashnikovs from 800-900m... and of course IEDs.

Of course they often go the other way like talking about Chinese anti carrier ballistic missiles... it is good to talk up technologies that can be defeated already... ballistic missiles have a very predictible flight path... that is what ballistic means.

What would be far more deadly would be if the Chinese developed stealthy high speed low flying cruise missiles with ranges of 5,000km to 8,000km that could be routed to fly low and fast with IIR seekers and just fly search patterns beyond the islands of taiwan in the north pacific searching for large ships...

they could receive some assistance from space based assets and even sea bed based assets and civilian fishing vessels and cargo ships...

But no.. lets talk up ballistic missiles cause they are easy to spot and follow a very predictable flight path to allow interception by a range of weapons from PAC-3, to THAAD, to Standard-3 and other systems already in service. Hell the ABM systems in Alaska could probably help...

Wait ! What ? Chinese anti-aircraft carrier icbms cqn be intercepted by usa naval sm-3 & 6 ? Is it true or a sarcastic comment ?

Garry you're right perhaps

THAAD usable against China's DF-31 missile ICBM let alone China's DF-XX Anti-aircraft carrier missile


The US's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-ballistic missile system which will be deployed to South Korea can potentially pose a threat to China's national security as it has the ability to monitor the People's Liberation Army's DF-31 intercontential ballistic missile, according to Chinese nationlist tabloid, the Global Times.

"A neighboring country can have its own opinion on the possible deployment of the THAAD system here, sert up by US forces in South Korea," said Kim Min-seok, the spokesman of the South Korean Defense Ministry on Mar. 16 regarding China's opposition to the deployment. "But it should not try to influence our security policy." Under pressure from both China and the United States, debate is still going on in the nation about whether South Korea should accept the missile defense system or not.

Park Hwee-rhak, dean of the Graduate School of Politics and Leadership at Kookmin University said that the X-Band radar system of the THAAD missile can not be used to detect missiles launched from China, during a seminar held by JoongAng Ilbo based in Seoul. However, the Global Times said that the AN/TPY-2 radar system of the missile defense system has a detecting range of 1,000 kilometers. It can be deployed to any theater within a short period and be placed aboard cargo planes such as the C-5 and C-17.

If China wants to attack the US with its DF-31 ballistic missiles, the place for it to mostly likely launch the attack is either northern China or Manchuria according to Hans M. Kristensen from the Federation of American Scientists. Both those ranges are close enough for the THAAD system in South Korea to monitor the movements of the Chinese missiles according to the Global Times. The paper went on to say that North Korea is being used only as an excuse for US to contain China

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20150321000091

max steel wrote: Garry you're right perhaps

THAAD usable against China's DF-31 missile ICBM let alone China's DF-XX Anti-aircraft carrier missile  


The US's Terminal High Altitude Area Defense anti-ballistic missile system which will be deployed to South Korea can potentially pose a threat to China's national security as it has the ability to monitor the People's Liberation Army's DF-31 intercontential ballistic missile, according to Chinese nationlist tabloid, the Global Times.

"A neighboring country can have its own opinion on the possible deployment of the THAAD system here, sert up by US forces in South Korea," said Kim Min-seok, the spokesman of the South Korean Defense Ministry on Mar. 16 regarding China's opposition to the deployment. "But it should not try to influence our security policy." Under pressure from both China and the United States, debate is still going on in the nation about whether South Korea should accept the missile defense system or not.

Park Hwee-rhak, dean of the Graduate School of Politics and Leadership at Kookmin University said that the X-Band radar system of the THAAD missile can not be used to detect missiles launched from China, during a seminar held by JoongAng Ilbo based in Seoul. However, the Global Times said that the AN/TPY-2 radar system of the missile defense system has a detecting range of 1,000 kilometers. It can be deployed to any theater within a short period and be placed aboard cargo planes such as the C-5 and C-17.

If China wants to attack the US with its DF-31 ballistic missiles, the place for it to mostly likely launch the attack is either northern China or Manchuria according to Hans M. Kristensen from the Federation of American Scientists. Both those ranges are close enough for the THAAD system in South Korea to monitor the movements of the Chinese missiles according to the Global Times. The paper went on to say that North Korea is being used only as an excuse for US to contain China

http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=11&id=20150321000091

...Perhaps you missed my post from the previous page...

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Flyingdutchman wrote:Sounds like the japanese underestemating the US in WW2.

All the high tech U.S. Weapon designs that the Chinese have in-depth knowledge on, the source is straight from the Pentagon:

A list of the U.S. weapons designs and technologies compromised by hackers

Weapon designs and technologies compromised

The following is reproduced from the nonpublic version of the
Defense Science Board report “Resilient Military Systems and the Advanced Cyber Threat”:

Table 2.2 Expanded partial list of DoD system designs and technologies compromised via cyber exploitation

SYSTEM DESIGNS

Terminal High Altitude Area Defense

Patriot Advanced Capability-3

Extended Area Protection and Survivability System (EAPS)

F-35

V-22

C-17

Hawklink

Advanced Harpoon Weapon Control System

Tanker Conversions

Long-term Mine Reconnaissance System

Global Hawk

Navy antenna mechanisms

Global Freight Management System

Micro Air Vehicle

Brigade Combat Team Modernization

Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System

USMC Tracked Combat Vehicles

Warfighter Information Network-Tactical (WIN-T)

T700 Family of Engines

Full Authority Digital Engine Controller (FADEC)

UH-60 Black Hawk

AMRAAM (AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile)

Affordable Weapons System

Littoral Combat Ship

Navy Standard Missile (SM-2,3,6)

P-8A/Multi-Mission Aircraft

F/A and EA-18

RC-135 Detect./Collect.

Mk54 Light Weight Torpedo

TECHNOLOGIES

Directed Energy

UAV video system

Specific Emitter identification

Nanotechnology

Dual Use Avionics

Fuze/Munitions safety and development

Electronic Intelligence Processing

Tactical Data Links

Satellite Communications

Electronic Warfare

Advanced Signal Processing Technologies for Radars

Nanostructured Metal Matrix Composite for Light Weight Ballistic Armor

Vision-aided Urban Navigation & Collision Avoidance for Class I Unmanned Air Vehicles (UAV)

Space Surveillance Telescope

Materials/processing technologies

IR Search and Track systems

Electronic Warfare systems

Electromagnetic Aircraft Launch

Rail Gun

Side Scan sonar

Mode 5 IFF

Export Control, ITAR, Distribution Statement B,C,D Technical Information

CAD drawings, 3D models, schematics

Software code

Critical technology

Vendor/supply chain data

Technical manuals

PII (email addresses, SSN, credit card numbers, passwords, etc.)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/a-list-of-the-us-weapons-designs-and-technologies-compromised-by-hackers/2013/05/27/a95b2b12-c483-11e2-9fe2-6ee52d0eb7c1_story.html

...The interesting thing about the PAC-3 industrial espionage, is that we actually have physical/empirical evidence that it happened, and likely the Chinese benefited and in which they secretly helped Iran, with plausible deniability. At the '1:43' time stamp is the Iranian PAC-3:

Ohk maybe it was done by ussa dod delibrately  in order to demand increase in the funds . sUCH EXCUSE WILL suit their purpose .


But How exactly USA aegis ships will intercept chinese anti-aircraft carrier DF-21 icbm with their SM-6 ? That i want to know .


Chinese S-400 can cover Taiwanese airspace but media nver reported that Taiwan also posses PAC-3 . (http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?cid=1101&MainCatID=&id=20150514000096 :  Military media exposes pictures of Taiwan's PAC-3 missiles

Lol so us is pissed that someone else can also destroy their satellites ? I think both China and Russia should militarize space because usa sm-3 & 6 are anti-sat weapons too. Militarization of Space will rather puncture usa further expensive budget.




Defiant Chinese Admiral’s Message: South China Sea ‘Belongs to China

Analysis: RAND Says US Facing Tough Fight With China

China Summons U.S. Ambassador, Slams Obama Decision To "Threaten Peace" With Warship Challenge

China Unleashes The Jingoist Rhetoric: "If U.S. Ships Stop, We Should Lock Them By Fire-Control Radar"

Australia Prepares Option of Sail-Through to Test China

European Union sides with United States on South China Sea incident


Vassals will be vassals

Should America Fight For The Spratlys?

Should America Fight For The Spratlys?

2 diffrnt analysis.

The irony - US insists everybody else obey the international law of the sea based on the UN Law of the Sea Convention which the US itself has not ratified and most likely won't ever.


It appears that Washington, ever a seething cauldron of bright ideas, is looking for a shooting war with China, or perhaps trying to make the Chinese kowtow and back down, the pretext being some rocks in the Pacific in which the United States cannot possibly have a vital national interest. Or, really, any interest. And if the Chinese do not back down?

Years back I went aboard the USS Vincennes, CG-49, a Tico class Aegis boat, then the leading edge of naval technology. It was a magnificent ship, fast, powered by a pair of airliner turbines, and carrying the SPY-1 phased-array radar, very high-tech for its time. The CIC was dark and air-conditioned, glowing with huge screens – impressive for then – displaying all manner of information on targets in the air. Below were Standard missiles, then on a sort of chain drive but in later ships using the Vertical Launch System. It was, as they say in Laredo, Muy Star Wars. (The Vincennes was the ship that later shot down the Iranian airliner.)


                           The Vincennes. The boxy thing up front is the radar. It is not hardened.


Being something of a technophile, I took all of this in with admiration, but I thought – what if it gets hit? As a kid in my preteens I had read about the battleships of WWII, the Carolinas but in particular the Iowa class, fast, brutal ships with sixteen-inch belt armor and turrets that an asteroid would bounce off of. The assumption was that ships were going to get hit. They were built to survive and continue fighting.

By contrast, the Vincennes was thin-skinned, hulled with aluminum instead of steel, and the radar, crucial to combat, looked perilously fragile. A single hit with anything serious, or perhaps even a cal .50, but certainly by anything resembling a GAU-8, and she would be hors de combat until refitted.

One hit.



The Iowa, BB-61. I went aboard her at Norfolk at the Navy’s invitation. It altered my appreciation of guns. I came away thinking that if you can’t     crawl into it, it isn’t really a gun. And solid: There is a reason why no battleship was sunk after Pearl Harbor.



I also knew well that the Navy played Red Team-Blue Team war games in which our own submarines – then chiefly 688s – tried to “sink” the surface fleet. The idea was that if the sub could get into firing position, it would send up a green flare. The subs were then running if memory serves the Mk 48 ADCAP torpedo, a wicked wire-guided thing with a long range. Sailors told me that invariably the subs “sank” the surface force.

When I mentioned this at CHINFO, the Navy’s PR operation in the Pentagon, flacks told me that the potential bad guys only had piddling diesel-electric subs, far inferior to our nukey boats, and couldn’t get near the fleet in open seas. Yes, no, maybe, and then. It sounded like happy talk to me. In WWII, diesel-electrics certainly got in range of surface ships, perhaps the most famous example being when Archer Fish sank Shinano.

I do not know a great deal about the Chinese Navy, having been out of that loop for years. I do know that the Chinese are smart, and that they have optimized their forces specifically to take out carrier battle groups near their territory. They do not try to match the US ship-for-ship in the kind of war America wants to fight. They would lose fast, and they know it. The key is to swarm the fleet with cruise missiles arriving all at once, accompanied perhaps by large numbers of aircraft. Would this work? I don’t know, but that is certainly the way I would bet.

The Navy has not been in a war for seventy years. It has sat off various shores and launched aircraft, but the fleet has not been engaged. Over decades of inaction, complacency sets in. Unfortunately, wars regularly turn out to be otherwise than expected. Further, the American military’s standard approach to a war is to underestimate the enemy (there is probably a manual on this).

Yet further, great emotional and financial capital resides in a carrier-battle group, one of the most impressive achievements of the human race. (I mean this: the technology, organization, and competence involved in, say, night flight ops are…”astonishing” is too feeble a word.)

This assures reluctance to question the fleet’s effectiveness in the face of changing conditions. Such as high-Mach, stealthed, maneuvering, sea-skimming cruise missiles. Or terminally guided anti-ship ballistic missiles. America is accustomed to fighting enemies who can’t fight back. This may not include the Chinese.

There is also the fact that the American military simply doesn’t matter, which reduces concern with whether it can fight and who it can fight. It doesn’t defend the US, since there is nothing to defend it against. (What country has the remotest possibility of invading America?) So the military is used for what are essentially hobbyist wars, keeping Israel happy, providing markets for the arms companies, and for social engineering: we have girl crews who would be a disaster at damage control, but we assume that there will never be any damage to control.

Uh…yeah. The evidence is that these ships are fragile:


  The carrier Forrestal, 1967. A single Zuni missile was fired accidentally. A huge fire ensued, bombs cooked off, 134 men were killed, and the ship   was devastated, out of service for a very long time. One five-inch missile. Something to think about.



                  USS Stark, 1987. Hit by two Exocet missiles fired by an Iraqi Mirage.


What would happen if in a shooting war the Chinese crippled the American fleet? Washington is rampant with large egos, especially that of John McCain, the senator from PTSD. If it were discovered that China could disable the Navy, many other countries might conclude that they could do it too. They most certainly would think of this. Washington could not accept the discovery: Fear of the carriers is a large element in Washington’s intimidation of the world. To save face, the US would be tempted to go nuclear, or seriously bomb China proper, with unforeseeable results.

The Air Force and Navy could hurt China badly by conventional means, yes, for example by cutting off oil from the Mideast, or destroying the Three Gorges dam. For a variety of reasons this would be playing with fire. The economic results of any of these bright ideas would be god awful.


                 USS Cole, 2000. Blown up by suicide guys in a small boat.

Washington seems not to realize that it wields far less military power than it thinks it does, and that the power it does wield is ever less useful than before. As a land power, it is very weak, being unable to defeat Russia, China, or peasants armed with rifles and RPGs. Air power has regularly proved indecisive.

If Washington somehow won a naval war with China, so what? It would provide the satisfactions of vanity, but China’s danger to the US imperium lies in increasing economic power and commercial expansion through Asia, where it holds the high cards: it is there, Washington isn’t. Grrr-bowwow-woofery in the far Pacific, even if successful, is not going to stop China’s commercial expansion, and a defeat would end the credibility of the Navy forever.

As I say, Washington is full of bright ideas.

max steel wrote:European Union sides with United States on South China Sea incident


Vassals will be vassals

i mentioned it before, Europe's military itself lacks the will to go to war against either Russia or China. The morale simply is not there to do so.

Airbornewolf wrote:

max steel wrote:European Union sides with United States on South China Sea incident


Vassals will be vassals

i mentioned it before, Europe's military itself lacks the will to go to war against either Russia or China. The morale simply is not there to do so.

Is the moreale in Euro armies really so low?